John, your question isn''t laughable at all. Instead, it helps illustrate why boats are in general so problematic.
The large Japanese manufacturers in general emphasize proactive, intensely detailed design of highly engineered solutions well in advance of production (in R&D, they are very strategic) while concurrently they view production as a highly engineered set of micro-processes, each being heavily refined, incrementally, relentlessly and unendingly. Anyone who''s done Kaizen work can appreciate the power of this process.
"Style" remains somewhat a foreign concept to them, which is why all the major Japanese car manufacturers continue to use design studios in Southern California & elsewhere in the U.S. to supplement their innate engineering bias. The typical large Japanese manufacturer doesn''t employ thousands of ''wunderkind engineers''; instead, it relies on a relentless, iterative improvement process which its engineers are willing by culture and the job market to accept.
Boat building by contrast seems to consist in America & Europe of two different types of manufacturers. Numerically, a majority of boat builders are small shops with an everchanging workforce that struggles to incorporate substantial change in manufacturing techniques (let alone the R&D expense of developing them) because the cost of doing so is hard to support over very small production runs. These builders are much like the 2nd tier manufacturers (''job shops'') in Japan who are, in reality, where the major manfacturers obtain some of their cost savings and most of their lower level assemblies: lower wages, less ideal safety regs, less impressive working conditions, etc. prevail at this level. And often among our smaller boat builders, changes in models over time accentuate design trends more and true technological change less, again out of financial necessity.
OTOH we have a few high-volume builders (Beneteau, Hunter, Catalina, Bavaria all pop to mind) which have embraced the manufacturing process itself as a competitive weapon to reduce product cost but without necessarily including technology improvements or quality concurrently, a very different mindset than what you find among the top tier Japanese manufacturers. Perhaps some here see the modern mass-produced sailboat as reflecting product improvement and/or improved technology and quality but I think that''s mistaking the abundant in-print marketing hype and manufacturing-related cost efficencies with true improvements (such as vacuum bagging, complex use of high-strength composites, etc.). As for design, the big builders certainly are quick to roll in lots of fresh sizzle along with their bit of steak, again pretty much the opposite of their car manufacturer counterparts in Japan.
Also, let''s keep in mind that virtually every component in that Toyota will have been designed, inspected and finally approved for use by the manufacturer, even if totally built outside the plant by a 2nd tier vendor. Boat builders - and especially the smaller ones - must accept what the marine industry produces (and has generated an interest in and demand for from we, the boat buyers), no matter its suitability, build quality or long-term longevity at sea.
I''m hugely oversimplifying, of course, and there are some smaller builders and also ''production houses'' (TPI e.g.) that I recognize stand outside my generic comparison. I''m also ignoring some Northern European builders (Hallberg Rassy, Malo, Etap and many Dutch builders are only a few examples) that have managed to develop cost effective manufacturing techniques despite smaller production runs that build in product improvement, as well. But after working for some years with a high-tech manufacturer that had a sister-company relationship with Mitsubishi for 70+ years now (only broken by the WWII war years), Ithink I''ve become somewhat familiar with the Japanese 2-tier system and general R&D/manufacturing mindset and, in general, see little evidence of it in boat building.
A ''Toyota'' boat would be competitively priced, incorporate state of the art technology, be efficient in performance, thoroughly ergonomic in design, offer relative safety in use, suffer from few design and manufacturing defects, and those complaints we''d develop in it over time would, in truth, be largely driven by expanding families, our social position, and our desire for ''new'' over ''old''. I''m not sure how much of what I just described is reflected in many of the BB conversations I see.